PrepTest 129

[lcid:3615] Prep Test 129 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-5  .        The United States government agency responsible  . for overseeing television and radio broadcasting, the  . Federal Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • The FCC's early policy (only serviced the broadcasting industry; citizens couldn't speak at hearings)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • The fact that citizens couldn't speak at FCC hearings caused the FCC to seem like it only serviced the broadcasting industry (third and fourth sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "addressing only" (first sentence); "were not recognized" (second sentence); "did not have the standing" (third sentence); "exclusively" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on landmark court case (changed FCC policy) and background on the case (FCC renewed discriminatory broadcast channel's license over a church's petition)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • A landmark case changed the FCC's early policy (first sentence)
      • The FCC probably denied the hearing to avoid setting a precedent that citizen groups could challenge government decisions (last sentence)
    • United Church of Christ's view:
      • A Jacksonville, MS television channel advocated racial segregation and excluded news and programs that supported integration (third and fourth sentences)
    • FCC's view:
      • The channel was discriminatory, but the church didn't have an economic interest in the channel, so the FCC couldn't hold a hearing and would be unnecessary anyway (fifth and sixth sentences)
    • Author's view: "real reason" (last sentence); "more likely" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • The church's two appeals (the first unsuccessful; in the second, a judge revoked the station's license and gave the church a hearing)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • The first judge granted a full renewal to the station, while the second revoked the license and held that the church was performing a public service and had a right to a hearing (first through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "little avail" (second sentence); "unprecedented" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on case's precedent and the FCC's new approach (public can petition every three years, many issues discussed)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The case set a precedent that the public can question radio and television licenses every three years at the time of renewal, and the public has discussed many issues at these hearings (first through last sentences)
    • Example of issues discussed at public FCC hearings, according to the author:
      • Racial issues; quality of children's television; violence; opposing political views (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "established a formidable precedent" (first sentence); "range of other matters" (last sentence); "because of the church's intervention" (last sentence)

Main Point: A court case brought by a church changed the course of history by challenging the FCC's practice of only listening to broadcasting companies, opening the door for community challenges to license renewals based on community values.

Meta-Structure?

Old Approach/New Approach: This passage best fits the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the author describes an old way of doing something or thinking about something is described. The author then describes a new, alternative way of doing or thinking about that same thing. Usually, the author prefers the new approach. That fits this passage to a T, where the first paragraph explains the FCC's initial focus on economic/business interests and refusal to hold public hearings. The author then discusses a court case brought by a church that "changed the course of that history" (P2, S1). This case eventually ushered in the FCC's new approach, where it holds public hearings that listen to the community on various issues.

When an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure defines a passage, the main point is usually the author's opinion on the new approach. The author speaks positively of the court case and its impact on the FCC's new approach, so we incorporated that into our anticipated main point.

Last Thoughts?

The back-and-forth of the court case (FCC renewal → Appeal → Decision against church → Appeal → Decision against television channel → Precedent/future decisions) was a little complex, so we should be sure we understand and differentiate the different steps along the way.

Question prompt

The author mentions some Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the reference to additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings, consult notes, and choose an answer choice based on your understanding of that reference in the passage's overall argument

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us why the author inserted the discussion of the additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings into the fourth paragraph. Unless a detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose, the author probably mentioned that detail to advance the paragraph's role. So reviewing the fourth paragraph's role, which we hopefully wrote down in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that detail.Our note for the fourth paragraph is, "Author on case's precedent and the FCC's new approach (public can petition every three years, many issues discussed)." So, we said the purpose of that paragraph was to show how the court cases mentioned in the previous paragraph established a precedent that set up subsequent rulings. These subsequent rulings have allowed the public to challenge license renewals. And,the "additional topics" that this question asks about are surely related to our note that there are "now many issues" that the public discusses before the FCC.Reviewing this particular reference in the fourth paragraph, we'll see that the author says that there are now "a range of other matters" that are "now discussed at licensing proceedings because of the church's intervention" (P3, S3). That last "because" is crucial, as it allows the author to tie these issues back to the main point. So, as we gleaned from our note, this list of additional topics is meant to emphasize how the church's case changed and expanded the FCC's public hearing process. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    support the author's claim Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this say that the author mentions the additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings to emphasize how the church's case changed and expanded the FCC's public hearing process?

    Yes! As we anticipated, the fourth paragraph is meant to highlight the way that the church case "open[ed] up to the public the world of broadcasting" — that's the topic sentence of this paragraph! The author then goes on to list topics that have been successfully raised at FCC hearings outside of the one raised by the church. In stating that the list in the fourth paragraph is meant to support the main point of that paragraph, this answer correctly characterizes the role of the list of additional topics. This is, therefore, the correct answer. We can justifiably select (A) and advance straight to the next question.

  2. B
    suggest the level of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that the author mentions the additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings to emphasize how the church's case changed and expanded the FCC's public hearing process?

    Nope. The author seems pleased that the public can challenge FCC broadcast licenses, but this answer choice suggests that the author thinks the FCC is an evil force that the public must check. That's not supported by the author's tone. That's not supported by the author's tone in the fourth paragraph (or anywhere else, for that matter). Moreover, there's no discussion of ongoing public vigilance, let alone necessary vigilance ("must maintain").

  3. C
    provide an explanation of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that the author mentions the additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings to emphasize how the church's case changed and expanded the FCC's public hearing process?

    No. The additional topics are things over which the public has launched challenges, not an explanation of why they're allowed to bring those challenges. This answer is like saying a list of cake flavors is an explanation of why we're having cake to begin with!

  4. D
    illustrate other areas of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that the author mentions the additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings to emphasize how the church's case changed and expanded the FCC's public hearing process?

    Negative. The passage brings up a list of things that "are now discussed at licensing proceedings" (P4, S3), not necessarily at proceedings for the station that was at the center of the church case.

  5. E
    demonstrate that the station Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that the author mentions the additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings to emphasize how the church's case changed and expanded the FCC's public hearing process?

    Again, no. First, the passage never explicitly establishes an obligation to the public. Second, the last paragraph is focused on precedent and the present trend, not on showing how widespread a problem was.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion